Nov 12, 2009
The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is a simple, necessary, and effective instrument for preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. It is unsettling that the United States has had such a tool within its reach for over a decade but has failed to grab it. To protect the nation, the Senate must move quickly to consider, and approve, the Test Ban Treaty, Kirk Bansak and Andrew Riedy write in The Register Citizen.
Nov 5, 2009
To illuminate the executive-legislative interaction that is already occurring and will intensify as the Obama administration moves to complete bilateral U.S.-Russian reductions of nuclear warheads and delivery vehicles, it helps to identify the congressional caucuses that exist to influence nuclear weapons policy. Travis Sharp briefly examines these conduits of informal power on Capitol Hill.
Nov 2, 2009
Ten years ago last month, the U.S. Senate failed to approve the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. A decade later, the dangers posed by the potential spread of nuclear weapons and materials to additional states and terrorists have increased dramatically. Stopping proliferation will require a global effort -- and an early, essential step in that effort must be U.S. ratification of the test ban, Kingston Reif argues in this new op-ed for World Politics Review.
Oct 30, 2009
In May 2009, the United States and Russia began formal negotiations on a follow-on agreement to replace START I, which expires in December 2009. Based on news reports, conversations with Russian and American experts, and discussions with senior U.S. officials, Kingston Reif outlines the four main sticking points in the negotiations.
Oct 30, 2009
A letter to Congress about the proliferation risks of a specific uranium enrichment method known as laser isotope separation that Global Laser Enrichment plans to use in its proposed uranium enrichment facility in North Carolina.
Oct 21, 2009
On October 7, a House-Senate conference committee finalized the Fiscal Year 2010 Defense Authorization bill. The bill authorizes $550.2 billion for the national security budget and $130 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan, which adds up to $680.2 billion in total funding, the same amount requested by the Obama administration. The House passed the conference bill on October 8. The Senate is expected to follow suit soon.
Oct 16, 2009
Assuming the United States and Russia can agree to new elimination, counting, and inspection rules as part of the New START negotiations, the United States should have no problem complying with a delivery vehicle limit of 800, which comports with the number of nuclear-armed systems it actually deploys and would not require it to eliminate bombers, missiles, and submarines that have been converted to conventional roles. Kingston Reif explains why in this new analysis.
Oct 8, 2009
Given the important role Capitol Hill can play in foreign policy, recent Senate reactions to major Obama administration announcements are worth analyzing as a sign of challenges ahead. After a survey of press activity, the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation concludes that only the sounds of silence have been heard from the Senate on arms control – except for Republicans’ predictable disavowal of reformulated plans for missile defense in Europe.
Oct 2, 2009
A letter opposing the laser enrichment facility planned in Wilmington, NC for which the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering a license request. Laser enrichment poses proliferation risks because it is harder to detect than other enrichment technologies.
Sep 24, 2009
On September 10, 2009, the Senate Appropriations Committee completed its markup of the fiscal year 2010 Defense Appropriations bill (HR 3326). The Committee bill provides $625.8 billion in total discretionary funding, $3.5 billion less than the President’s request. Of the total, $497.6 billion is for the Department of Defense “base” budget and $128.2 billion is for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Sep 14, 2009
In 2009-2010, the national college debate topic asks whether or not the United States “should substantially reduce the size of its nuclear weapons arsenal, and/or substantially reduce and restrict the role and/or missions of its nuclear weapons arsenal.” To help debaters prepare, the Center prepared an online guide to background materials, publications, and relevant organizations.
Sep 1, 2009
Would a senator from a state dependent on the nuclear weapons complex oppose an arms control treaty not on the basis of ideology, but because the treaty would mean the loss of jobs or funding in their home state? “Absolutely,” Travis Sharp argues in this new article for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Online.
Aug 25, 2009
Global Zero is dependent on compliance, which in turn relies on mutual trust between states in the international system that weapons will not be concealed. This appears remote and subsequently so too does the feasibility of such a goal as complete nuclear disarmament, Lt. Gen. Robert Gard writes on Atlantic-Community.org.
Aug 17, 2009
There is no hard consensus as to exactly how close Iran is to acquiring a nuclear weapon, fitting a nuclear warhead on a ballistic missile, and/or developing a ballistic missile capable of reaching most of Europe and the United States. In this new factsheet, Kingston Reif surveys the relevant intelligence reports and summarizes the various estimates.
Aug 10, 2009
On July 20, 2009, the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation and Physicians for Social Responsibility co-hosted a briefing on nuclear reprocessing. The briefing featured Dr. Frank von Hippel, Henry Sokolski, and Dr. Edwin Lyman.
Aug 3, 2009
Obama and Medvedev in Moscow hammered out the framework for an agreement to replace the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). Much more work lies ahead, but conditions are now ideal for the United States and Russia to conclude significant arms control initiatives in the coming months and years. These initiatives will strengthen U.S. security and improve America’s standing in the world.
Jul 28, 2009
On July 22, 2009, the House Appropriations Committee completed its markup of the fiscal year 2010 Defense Appropriations bill (HR 3326). The Committee bill provides $636.6 billion in total funding, $3.8 billion less than the President’s request. Of the total, $508.4 billion is for the Department of Defense “base” budget and $128.2 billion is for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Jul 22, 2009
In this full-length article published by the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, John Isaacs and Travis Sharp review the history of missile defense since World War II in search of insights that can be applied today. Isaacs and Sharp argue that President Obama retains two viable options for U.S. missile defense in Europe: “The Bargaining Chip" or "The Gas Mask."
Currently reading page 2 of 10.
Previous Page
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Next Page